State Bank Of India vs Mantu R.Singh

In the matter of: State Bank of India ...Appellant Vs. Mantu R. Singh ...Respondent

Present: Appellant: Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Ayuj Agarwal, Bijesh Gupta, Advocates Respondent: ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 25.02.2026 - This appeal is preferred by the financial creditor who

challenges an order dismissing its application under Section 95 of the IBC. The

respondent was served through substituted service and proof of affidavit of

service has also been duly filed. There is no appearance for the respondent and

respondent is set ex-arte.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. When on 07.04.2025 the

Adjudicating Authority took up its petition under Section 95, IBC to consider it

preliminary, it was noticed that the appellant herein had not enclosed the deed

of guarantee and also the document by which the personal guarantee against

the respondent was invoked. The appellant accordingly sought time to amend

the petition but it was rejected on the ground that the petition was pending since,

2023, and rejected leave to amend and proceeded to dismiss the petition, and

granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh petition.

3. The learned Counsel submitted that in fitness of things, the Adjudicating

Authority should have taken on record these two documents and even though 2

the Adjudicating Authority had granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh

petition may be barred by limitation. It is submitted inadvertent error should

have been condoned.

4. We have perused the papers and also the impugned Order. We understand

that even though the petition under Section 95 was filed sometime in 2023, it

was taken up for preliminary consideration only on 07.04.2025. If this delay has

influenced the line of reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority, then it may be

stated that the entire blame cannot be fastened on the appellant.

5. We consider that the appellant should have been granted liberty to

produce the two documents which are indicated above. In view of the same, we

allow this appeal and set aside the impugned Order of the Adjudicating Authority

dated 07.04.2025 and direct the deed of guarantee and the connected

documents which the appellant has produced be taken on record. The matter is

remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority and it is required to proceed with

the petition filed under Section 95, IBC in accordance with law.

The appeal is disposed of. No cost.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member Technical rs/beena